Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Basal Analog Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study compared basal analog (BA: glargine U100/mL and detemir) and premix (PM: human, lispro and aspart biphasic) insulin regimens in terms of their efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Methods

Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL identified primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥ 12 weeks in duration that compared BA or PM insulin regimens in adults with T2DM, with ≥ 30 patients per arm. A systematic literature review and a pairwise meta-analysis were performed using a random effects model adjusted for between-study variability. Analyses were conducted based on frequency of bolus insulin and PM injections, PM ratio and type, BA type, race, follow-up period, and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c).

Results

Twenty-two primary RCTs with 9691 patients were included. The BA and PM regimens yielded similar changes in HbA1c and postprandial glucose levels, with a statistically significant reduction in fasting glucose [mean difference (MD) - 0.61 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.90, - 0.32), I² = 89.6%]. The BA regimens showed significantly reduced rates of total hypoglycemia [odds ratio (OR) 0.77 (95% CI 0.64, 0.92), I² = 65.3%] and changes in body weight [MD - 0.48 kg (95% CI - 0.86, - 0.11), I² = 75.7%] compared to PM regimens. Stratification by PM type and dosing ratio demonstrated statistically significant reductions in HbA1c favoring BA compared to human [MD - 0.39% (95% CI - 0.60, - 0.18), I² = 61.8%] or 50/50-ratio [MD - 0.22% (95% CI - 0.40, - 0.04), I² = 0.0%] PM regimens. Other subgroup analyses found no difference in HbA1c change between the BA and PM regimens.

Conclusion

When compared to PM regimens, BA regimens yielded similar efficacies and better safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Funding

Sanofi (Shanghai, China).

SUBMITTER: Hong T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6531585 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study was designed to evaluate the efficiency and tolerability of empagliflozin (EMPA) as monotherapy or add-on to existing therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EMPA vs placebo or EMPA plus other antidiabetes drugs vs placebo plus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in T2DM were recruited from electronic database Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), supplemented by a hand search of the reference lists of selected articles. Main effect sizes were change from baseline on glycemia control, body weight, blood pressure, and complications (i.e., incidence of urinary and genital tract infections, and morbidity of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia). Random-effects model was used to account for clinical or methodologic heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS:Fifteen RCTs with a total number of 7891 individuals (5374 in EMPA group and 2517 in control group) were suitable for this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that significant improvements in glycemia control, body weight, and blood pressure were associated with EMPA application (i.e., monotherapy and add-on therapy) in patient with T2DM when compared with placebo. Meanwhile, EMPA 10 and 20?mg improved glycemia, body weight, and blood pressure control for patients with T2DM. There was no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia and urinary tract infections across EMPA and placebo group. Significant reduced risk of hyperglycemia was revealed in EMPA group vs placebo (risk ratio: 0.34, 95%confidence interval: 0.23-0.49, P?<?.00001), except in patients on background insulin therapy. However, increased risk of genital infection was noted across EMPA vs placebo (risk ratio: 2.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.80-3.71, P?<?.00001). CONCLUSION:Our evidence supports the application of EMPA in treatment of patients with T2DM who are obesity or at risk of weight gain.

Project description:AimThe comparative effectiveness of basal insulins has been examined in several studies. However, current treatment algorithms provide a list of options with no clear differentiation between different basal insulins as the optimal choice for initiation.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ISI, and Scopus, and a reference list of retrieved studies and reviews were performed up to November 2023. We identified phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of basal insulin regimens. The primary outcomes evaluated were HbA1c reduction, weight change, and hypoglycemic events. The revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. A random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals considering the critical assumptions in the networks. The certainty of the evidence and confidence in the rankings was assessed using the GRADE minimally contextualized approach.ResultsOf 20,817 retrieved studies, 44 RCTs (23,699 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our network meta-analysis. We found no significant difference among various basal insulins (including Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH), ILPS, insulin glargine, detemir, and degludec) in reducing HbA1c. Insulin glargine, 300 U/mL (IGlar-300) was significantly associated with less weight gain (mean difference ranged from 2.9 kg to 4.1 kg) compared to other basal insulins, namely thrice-weekly insulin degludec (IDeg-3TW), insulin degludec, 100 U/mL (IDeg-100), insulin degludec, 200 U/mL (IDeg-200), NPH, and insulin detemir (IDet), but with low to very low certainty regarding most comparisons. IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 were associated with significantly lower odds of overall, nocturnal, and severe hypoglycemic events than NPH and insulin lispro protamine (ILPS) (moderate to high certainty evidence). NPH was associated with the highest odds of overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia compared to others. Network meta-analysis models were robust, and findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.ConclusionThe efficacy of various basal insulin regimens is comparable. However, they have different safety profiles. IGlar-300 may be the best choice when weight gain is a concern. In contrast, IDeg-100, IDeg-200, IDet, and IGlar-300 may be preferred when hypoglycemia is the primary concern.

Project description:Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it's unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: -1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: -0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient's needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

Project description:BackgroundDapagliflozin, a novel inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2), lowers blood glucose level by specifically inhibiting the activity of SGLT-2. Previous studies showed efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin combined with other antihyperglycemic agents in type 2 diabetes (T2DM), however, there are few studies for dapagliflozin as monotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as a monotherapy in T2DM and provide theoretical basis for clinical rational use of drugs.MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placbo-controlled clinical studies in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP database through October 2018, we also manually screened list of references to the previous meta-analysis of dapagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Data search and extraction were completed with a standardized data form and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 2033 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin monotherapy was associated with a reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.60%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.67%, -0.52%; P < .00001), fasting plasam glucose (FPG) (WMD: -1.30 mmol/L; 95% CI: -1.52, -1.08; P < .00001), and body weight (WMD: -1.50 kg; 95% CI: -1.67, -1.32; P < .00001). Dapagliflozin was associated with an increased risk of urinary tract infections (relative risk [RR]: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.49; P = .003) and genital tract infections (RR: 3.52; 95% CI: 2.06, 6.03; P < .00001).ConclusionsDapagliflozin monotherapy was well tolerated and effective in reducing the level of HbA1c, FPG, and body weight in patients with T2DM without increasing hypoglycaemia, although it may increase the risk of urinary tract infections and genital tract infections. This meta-analysis provides an evidence for the treatment in patients with T2DM. However, more randomized clinical evidences are still needed to verify the results.

Project description:Background: Teneligliptin is a 3rd-generation dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. There is a limited evidence regarding the effect of teneligliptin. Therefore, this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with inadequately glycemic controlled. Methods: A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library during 2000.01-2018.03 was performed for randomized controlled trials of teneligliptin compared to placebo in patients with T2DM with monotherapy or add-on treatment. Results: Ten trials with 2119 patients were analyzed. Teneligliptin produced absolute reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-0.91 to -0.72], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. However, after 36-42 weeks of follow-up (open-label), HbA1c level rise higher than duration (double-blind) in teneligliptin group. Teneligliptin led to greater decrease of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level (vs. placebo, WMD -18.32%, 95% CI [-21.05 to -15.60], p < 0.00001). Teneligliptin also significantly decreased the 2 h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 h PPG) (WMD -46.94%, 95% CI [-51.58 to -42.30], p < 0.00001) and area under the glucose plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 h (AUC0-2h) for PPG (WMD -71.50%, 95% CI [-78.09 to -64.91], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Patients treated with teneligliptin achieved increased homeostasis model assessment of β cell function (HOMA-β) with 9.31 (WMD, 95% CI [7.78-10.85], p < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between teneligliptin and placebo in overall adverse effects (0.96 risk ratio (RR), 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.06). The risks of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between teneligliptin and placebo (1.16 RR, 95% CI [0.59, 2.26], p = 0.66). Conclusions: Teneligliptin improved blood glucose levels and β-cells function with low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. Common adverse effects of teneligliptin including hypoglycemia were identified and reviewed. Risks of cardiovascular events are less certain, and more data for long-term effects are needed.